StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sig-Sauer that is. God I'm funny. It's my Dad's actually.



Compared to a 60s era Colt 1911A1.


Disassembled.

It shoots wonderful, and is utterly reliable. DA trigger pull is heavy, but smooth. Sights are the easiest to acquire of all our handguns. Can't go wrong with a Sig .45

Pretty. I like out HK alot, it's very reliable. I might take some pictures for you all.

I like it.


nice joke with the title of the thread by the way

Nice weapon. Good pun.

Methinks your name is ill-fitting, Gunshy.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Methinks your name is ill-fitting, Gunshy.

Whatever gave you that idea ? I guess I picked it because I thought it sounded neat, and I didn't want some pretentious uber pro-gun name like, "Trigger Happy" or "Molan Labe." Although I did briefly consider
"Remington Steele"

When you get to that age when you have enough posts to get a custom title, consider : "Really! I don't like guns at all."

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Methinks your name is ill-fitting, Gunshy.

Maybe he flinches each time he pulls the trigger.

Gunshy wrote: Sights are the easiest to acquire of all our handguns.

You use the sights? You'll be putting a scope on it next.

Sights on pistols, like bikes for fish - a lot of craftsmanship totally wasted.

Rob Wilson wrote:

Gunshy wrote: Sights are the easiest to acquire of all our handguns.

You use the sights? You'll be putting a scope on it next.

Sights on pistols, like bikes for fish - a lot of craftsmanship totally wasted.

I don't know about that. There are pistols out there built for long-range shooting. Of course, the thing's have barrels 2' long. . .

Matt Huang wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote:

Gunshy wrote: Sights are the easiest to acquire of all our handguns.

You use the sights? You'll be putting a scope on it next.

Sights on pistols, like bikes for fish - a lot of craftsmanship totally wasted.

I don't know about that. There are pistols out there built for long-range shooting. Of course, the thing's have barrels 2' long. . .

Yes, these are called Rifles.

Long-range with a Long-barrel pistol is 100m, maybe 120m if you use a powerful enough round. They also have to be mounted on stands to have a hope of doing anything, as the slightest movement by the Firing hand, leads to a huge movement at the end of the barrel. They're an exercise in performance testing and lets-see-what-happens-if.

The target versions with longer barrels hav them so the rounds are more accurately placed as more energy is kept for longer pushing the bullet out and utilising the rifling for longer. This is so you get dependable, repeatable travel of the round over any distance (target pistols, like most pistols are rarely used beyond 30-40m), and again sights are superfluous. If the grip is steady enough, every round will follow the last (especially for the .22 target pistols).

Well Rob, you have to make the first shot hit the target, and that's what the sights are for. Especially when you're doing a 50yd slow fire course.

Rob Wilson wrote: You use the sights? You'll be putting a scope on it next.

Yeah, I know most gunfights happen in terms of feet, not yards, but if I'm ever involved in something like that, I'd like to be as accurate as possible. I don't know if that's possible by instinctive firing.

But, it's moot anyway, I won't be able to carry a handgun for at least 3 years. And if someone broke into our house, I'd much rather have my 12ga, than a .45.

Tsyroc wrote: Maybe he flinches each time he pulls the trigger.

You sir, have offended my honor. I challenge you to a duel. Sig-Sauers at 20 paces?

Gunshy wrote:

Rob Wilson wrote: You use the sights? You'll be putting a scope on it next.

Yeah, I know most gunfights happen in terms of feet, not yards, but if I'm ever involved in something like that, I'd like to be as accurate as possible. I don't know if that's possible by instinctive firing.

But, it's moot anyway, I won't be able to carry a handgun for at least 3 years. And if someone broke into our house, I'd much rather have my 12ga, than a .45.

That's no fun. At the very least you should inflict some blunt force trauma with a crowbar.

Beowulf wrote:Well Rob, you have to make the first shot hit the target, and that's what the sights are for. Especially when you're doing a 50yd slow fire course.

Are you seriously telling me you can't hit a target with a pistol first shot without using your sights? That's for any range by the way.

45m? You're using a target/competition pistol or a high-calibre long-barrel (8"+) pistol aren't you? Even then, sights are unnecessary if you're properly trained and practiced.

Gunshy wrote:
Yeah, I know most gunfights happen in terms of feet, not yards, but if I'm ever involved in something like that, I'd like to be as accurate as possible. I don't know if that's possible by instinctive firing.

I've never used the sights on a pistol (excepting the first time I shot ) and I can achieve 4, 20mm, 3 rnd groupings from 15m (20yrds approx) in a single string of shots.

Is that how they train you in the British Army? My father's taught me sight alignment, sight alignment, and sight alignment, but he was a corpman in the US Navy. I'll be sure and give it a shot (Ha! Get it?) next time I go to the range.

What pistols did you shoot in the Army Rob? Sigs, USP's, Brownings what?
This is just to satisfy my curiosity mind you.

Gunshy wrote:Is that how they train you in the British Army? My father's taught me sight alignment, sight alignment, and sight alignment, but he was a corpman in the US Navy. I'll be sure and give it a shot (Ha! Get it?) next time I go to the range.

You need to know the secret of how to do it. Otherwise I guarentee you you'll miss more than you hit.

As to Sight Alignment, on a rifle then yes. It's part of the Marksmanship principles for a reason.

Dirty Harry wrote:What pistols did you shoot in the Army Rob? Sigs, USP's, Brownings what?
This is just to satisfy my curiosity mind you.

Browning GP35. I only got to shoot it 2 maybe 3 times a year, but if you know how to use it properly then you'll always hit the target.